Latest news with #LauraTesler
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The unlikely sanctuaries: Republican Oregon counties make since-recalled Trump list
The Alvord Desert outside Burns in Harney County is one of the driest places in Oregon. The county made it onto a list of sanctuary jurisdictions. (Laura Tesler/Oregon Capital Chronicle) If you were to imagine local places in this country that obstruct federal law, you might guess that map would look different depending on what kind of administration — Republican or Democratic, liberal or conservative — is in power in Washington. The Trump administration delivered a comprehensive list of more than 500 such places last week. And for Oregon, at least, it doesn't look the way you would expect. The list grew out of an executive order from President Donald Trump on April 28 ordering that 'the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify each sanctuary jurisdiction regarding its defiance of Federal immigration law enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal law.' Those jurisdictions could mean states, counties and cities. There is no posted definition of what it takes to qualify as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The order was not simply intended as an accusation but also a requirement that federal officials 'identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate.' Funds would be cut off, possibly including disaster relief money, and legal action against the local entities would be pursued.' That could mean local governments on a massive scale could see federal funds cut off. No sort of appeal process was indicated, though presumably court action will be involved. Just a day later on May 28, the list of offending jurisdictions was released by the agencies. 'These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said. So what is a 'sanctuary city' (or other jurisdiction)? In a general sense, there is no such thing, since federal immigration law applies everywhere in the country, and federal officials (such as those in ICE) are free to enforce it anywhere. The level of local support for those operations varies, though. Oregon state law, for instance (like that of many other states), bars state and local officials from inquiring about, or blocking services based on immigration status. It does not stop federal enforcement of the law. Still, you can imagine the state of Oregon overall, and Portland specifically, would be on a 'sanctuary city' list, and they are. On January 21, new Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said, 'Our state and local leaders are committed to ensuring that no one is treated unfairly because of their immigration status. The Sanctuary Promise Act mandates that local law enforcement document any federal demands for immigration enforcement and ensures our state laws are followed.' On April 28 he reiterated, 'Portland stands unwavering in its commitment to sanctuary policies, rooted in the belief that every resident, including immigrants, deserves dignity, respect, and protection. The city of Portland fully complies with all applicable federal and state laws and will not obstruct lawful federal enforcement operations. Importantly, our police officers will not be used as agents of ICE.' We'll put aside the idea — which in normal times would govern public spending but today apparently does not — for the moment that local political preferences or views on issues never should be the basis for deciding who receives the federal funds that, after all, we all pay into. The other three cities on the list – Eugene, Beaverton, and Hood River – also are no particular surprise. The counties, and 15 of them are listed, are another matter. A few of these, like Multnomah (Portland), Lane (Eugene) and Washington (Beaverton and Hillsboro), would be expected. These are deep blue places where most of the voters and elected officials deeply oppose the Trump administration and many of its works, not least its immigration-related actions. Lincoln and Clatsop counties also voted against Trump in 2024, so there's some political consistency in their inclusion as well. For whatever reason, Clackamas, Deschutes, Benton and Hood River, all Democratic in last year's presidential election, were left off the list. (Officials in those counties, Benton especially, may be wondering why.) But the list also includes Columbia County (Trump 55%), Harney County (Trump 77.7%), Klamath County (Trump 69.5%), Lake County (Trump 81.2%), Linn County, Marion County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County, Union County and Yamhill County. All of these voted for Trump last year, some of them by super-landslide majorities. What exactly did they do to put the federal bullseye on their backs? They understandably could be asking about this in bewilderment and anger. This is not unique to Oregon. In Washington state, where the politics and policies in this are similar to Oregon, all but three of the state's 39 countries were put on the black list. Sounds like another round of lawsuits against the Trump Administration teed up for the office of Attorney General Dan Rayfield. Oh, wait: On June 1 the Department of Homeland Security retracted its list of sanctuary locations, after an uproar from local and state officials and groups around the country. It did not say what actions it plans to take next.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Autonomous in Oregon: A new spin on rural-urban divide
Pronghorn antelope roam near Rome in eastern Oregon. (Photo by Laura Tesler/Oregon Capital Chronicle) The idea of Greater Idaho — splitting off most of eastern Oregon to join with the state of Idaho — isn't going to fly. It won't happen. So here's another idea: The Autonomous Area of Eastern Oregon. And Western too, for good measure. This concept was not invented in the deep recesses of a pundit's mind. It comes from a recently introduced piece of legislation by a Republican lawmaker in the state of Washington. Washington has a regional dynamic similar to Oregon. The bulk of its population is west of the Cascades and as a region votes clearly Democratic, while the geographically larger but less populated territory to the east votes Republican — with all the correlating social and economic considerations that implies. Washington's east side hasn't organized a highly visible join-Idaho effort the way Oregon's has, but the proposal has surfaced occasionally. A related but different idea emerged in this year's Washington legislative session. Rep. Rob Chase, R-Spokane Valley in House Bill 2085 proposed keeping Washington state intact, and its congressional representation unchanged, but splitting most governing within the state. The bill described it this way: 'The legislature intends to divide the state into two autonomous regions, the Puget Sound region and the Columbia region, by constitutional amendment. Each region would provide regional governors, regional legislators, and regional judges. The state of Washington will remain a single state for purposes of federal election, as proposed in New York Senate Bill 2023-S3093.' Presumably, that would mean splitting the key regional elections (both autonomous areas would have governors and legislatures, for example) while both vote under a common system for federal offices. Laws and regulations and finances would be affected as well. Chase said of this, 'We would have better representation that takes into account the ideals, principles, priorities, beliefs, and values found in the populace that it serves. Isn't this what our Founding Fathers envisioned when establishing our Democratic Republic?' This approach isn't something familiar to American government: There are no formal 'autonomous regions' in the United States. They're more common in other parts of the globe, however, including the Caucasus, China and even a slice of Finland. Greenland, famously, is an autonomous region: Largely self-governing but under the national umbrella of Denmark. On an American state level it's an ambitious idea, but it may be within the purview of the state legislature. It probably would require a state constitutional amendment, but — because states do have some leeway in setting up their own governments — it might not require federal approval. If the legislature and voters approved, it probably (we'd have to see what the courts would say) could happen. The bill didn't go anywhere in the Washington legislature this year, nor should we expect any voter action. Chase said he introduced it now mainly to get a head start for a future push. But the Greater Idaho folks have no doubt heard of it, and the idea of a similar bill introduction in Salem may be floated soon if it hasn't been already. The process might even be simpler in Oregon: While Washington requires constitutional amendments to come from the legislature, Oregon allows them via citizen initiatives. So how might this play out in Oregon? Imagine the Greater Idaho group or some other organization petitioning for a constitutional amendment to be approved, or not, by the voters. This would have a considerable advantage over the kind of long-term and probably hopeless slog to change state boundaries. If structured carefully, the issue might be resolved in a single election through a change in the state constitution. If it passed, it would happen through the approval of the voters, which would give the idea powerful legitimacy statewide. Getting most Oregonians to vote in favor, of course, would be difficult. You'll also notice the reference to 'structured carefully.' Plenty of tricky issues would have to be addressed. We might be talking about three governors in Oregon, one for the whole state and one each for the east and the west. How do they relate to each other, and to the federal government, and what relative powers would they have? You could ask similar questions about the Legislature. Would there still be a statewide legislature, and if so, what could it and could it not do? What might be the differences in tax and spending? What about federal money coming to the state of Oregon: How would it be divided? How would law enforcement and safety agencies coordinate? If criminal and other laws were different (which would seem to be part of the point of having an autonomous region), what about extradition? What would be the authority of whatever remained of a statewide Oregon government, because there would have to be one if only to deal with other states and the feds. The autonomous idea is more complex than it first sounds. If Greater Idaho is watching the action across the Columbia, they may want to pay attention to how legislator Chase started to field the questions that are sure to multiply. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The weighted vote — or veto
Pronghorn antelope roam near Rome in eastern Oregon. Two proposed constitutional amendments before the Legislature would give rural residents more power to determine which initiatives make the ballot. (Photo by Laura Tesler/Oregon Capital Chronicle) The premise behind two constitutional amendments proposed by Republican lawmakers is that it's too easy to place an initiative on the ballot in Oregon. Buried inside that premise is that idea that some Oregonians' clout in the initiative process should count more than for others. Both House Joint Resolution 3 and HJR 11 aim to change the number of petition signatures needed for initiative backers to win a spot on the ballot. Now, Oregonians who want to pass laws at the ballot need to gather valid signatures from 6% of the total number of votes cast for governor during the last gubernatorial election — just more than 88,000 signatures. The threshold for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments is higher at 8%, or nearly 118,000 signatures. HJR 11 would raise the initiative requirement from 6% to 8% — increasing the requirement by a third — and require the signatures be 'divided equally' among Oregon's six congressional districts. For citizen-proposed constitutional amendments, the requirement would rise from 8% to 10%. HJR 3 would require initiative backers to collect signatures from 6% of voters in each of Oregon's 36 counties — an even more difficult mark to reach in a politically polarized state. A March 10 hearing on both measures showed widespread opposition and, at the Legislature at least, limited support. HJR 11 drew 104 testimony submissions, with just 24 in support (and two neutral). For HJR 3, 78 witnesses submitted testimony — all in opposition. The level of criticism shouldn't surprise, given Oregon's historical background with ballot issues. Oregon was one of the first states to adopt the idea of developing legislation or constitution changes directly to the public. Throughout the state's history, voters have decided 881 ballot issues (almost a quarter of them related to taxes), but reaching the ballot has been no guarantor of passage. Fewer than half (411) of the measures won voter approval, which has evidently given no one a slam dunk at the polls. The argument that it's too easy to place an issue on the ballot might have some currency if the number of initiatives on the ballot has been exploding. But it hasn't: In fact, the number continues to fall. After a large number of initiatives presented shortly after the method was started, the number of initiatives slumped in the mid-20th century, then grew in its latter third, to 92 ballot issues in the 1970s, 73 in the 1980s and 105 in the 1990s. Then, in this century, the number has fallen steadily, from 86 in the 2000s, to 39 in the 2010s and just 13 so far in this decade. Besides that, significant numbers of ballot issue campaigns fall short of the ballot qualification even under current rules. The stronger support for these new resolutions — at least to judge from the amount of supportive testimony received — seems not to be for raising the overall petition signature level, but rather ensuring that every county provides significant support for it. Sen. Todd Nash, R-Enterprise, argued for example: 'This should be more representative from all of Oregon to gather those signatures. Right now, we're not seeing that shape up that way. It's coming from one concentrated area.' Eastern Oregon rancher Katie Baltzor said many ballot initiatives, 'are crafted by extreme groups that have a specific agenda that would be harmful to specific livelihoods, such as ours. Many conservative and moderate Eastern Oregonians feel they do not have a voice in the legislative or initiative process. It is too easy for these groups to gather all the signatures they need for a ballot initiative by going to a highly populated area.' Some of this ties into the Greater Idaho protest, or the idea that eastern Oregonians aren't being adequately heard in Salem — and there's a good argument that they sometimes aren't. In Idaho, because of legislative action, rural votes do count more because of per-county signature requirements, which have reduced the number of initiatives that hit the ballot. That, of course, has come at the expense of urban and suburban dwellers. The core problem the Oregon initiative limitation backers have is simply the large number of people in the more urban and suburban areas, mostly in the Willamette Valley: They're outvoted. The only way around that is to weigh some votes (or petition signatures) more heavily than others. Dan Meek of the Independent Party of Oregon offered an analogy: 'If HJR 11 is a good idea, then let's apply it to votes in the Oregon Legislature: In order to pass, a bill must be approved by members of the Legislature representing every CD. If the 10 state representatives and 5 state senators who represent districts within any of the 6 CDs do not provide majority votes in favor of a bill, then the bill fails. Thus, representatives and senators within each CD get to veto every bill. That is equivalent to the system proposed by HJR 11.' People cast votes, and make other decisions in state politics. Land acreage doesn't. Most likely, the Oregon Legislature will factor in those directions when it comes to these two resolutions. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
